Archive | July 2nd, 2015

NOVANEWS

Imagine being falsely accused of terrorism for nothing more than the books you have read. Well that’s exactly what has happened to a Florida man named Marcus Dwayne Robertson.

The U.S. government composed “snippets of information from various sources, out of context, to weave together a narrative of terrorist ideation,” according to a Florida judge.

That judge just ordered the release of Robertson, also known as “Abu Taubah,” an Orlando, Florida resident and Islamic scholar. Abu Taubah was accused of “supporting terrorism,” but the “evidence” against him amounted to nothing more than the books on his bookshelf.

Robertson, also known as “Abu Taubah,” was incarcerated from 2011. The charges he faced, however, were tax fraud and illegal gun possession. Not exactly “terrorism.”

But following his arrest and conviction stemming from these charges, prosecutors added what they termed “terrorism enhancement” to the sentence.

There seems to be no rationale for this other than ABu Taubah’s religious orientation… that and his book collection.

This sentencing guideline modification would have locked Robertson up for 20 years.

But the judge’s recent rejection of this bizarre, Orwellian sentencing “enhancement”, led to the Islamic scholar being released immediately.

Robertson’s sentence was argued as justifiable by prosecutors who said the contents of his Islamic book collection were sufficient “evidence” that he was connected to terrorism.

Approximately two dozen eBooks that Robertson downloaded were presented as “evidence” of his “terrorist connections.”

Prosecutors highlighted passage after controversial passage, as though this could serve as legitimate evidence that someone is a terrorist. They didn’t seem to understand that the contents of a book someone owns cannot be used as evidence against them.

A memorandum obtained by First Look was issued along with Judge Gregory A. Presnell decision. That memorandum strongly rejected the government’s argument that eBook passages could be used as “evidence” of “terrorism.”

“[T]here was no evidence produced that Robertson ever accessed these particular documents, much less that he took their extremism to heart,” Presnell argued.

He made it clear that even if the Islamic scholar admitted to having read the eBooks in question, this would not and could not be used as evidence of terrorism.

“The government has never disputed Robertson’s claim of being an Islamic scholar,” he added. “It is not at all remarkable for an Islamic scholar to study, among many, many others, the writings of Islamic extremists.”

He said that beyond this, the prosecutors did “not even come close to proving… Robertson’s relatively minor income tax fraud was intended to promote a federal crime of terrorism.”

The judge noted that he received “hundreds of emails” over the last few weeks that urged him to lock up the man for no reason other than because he was a Muslim. These emails amount to little more than racism and bigotry in most cases, and fear-mongering and ignorance in the rest.

“In America, everyone has a right to say and believe what they want, within the bounds of the law,” Presnell said before declaring that Robertson would have to be released immediately.

Robertson’s lawyer Daniel Broderson agreed that “at no point did the government ever have any actual evidence [Robertson] advocated terrorism, so they attempted to use his library of books as a backhanded way of branding him as a terrorist. He spent four years in prison, two years of it in isolation, over a prosecution that was both unfounded and that completely ran afoul of the first amendment.”

Speaking to The Intercept after he was released, Robertson said, “they’re trying to find an indirect way to sentence people with non-terrorism charges as though they’d committed terrorism offenses, without having to provide the preponderance of evidence that is normally required in such cases. You own a few books and some guy tells an informant you said something, and suddenly that is legal basis enough to sentence you to prison for decades.”

He added that he “lost all those years, in jail, in terrible conditions, away from my family. After all that, they couldn’t produce one single statement from me that supported terrorism.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Florida Man Accused of ‘Terrorism’ Based On Book Collection

NOVANEWS

On June 2, the United States announced that 180 Marines would be deployed to Honduras as a preventative measure primarily concerning the upcoming hurricane season. Both the U.S. Marines and the White House affirmed that the military mobilization will be temporary and that its functions will only be used to protect the local populace in the case of a natural disaster.[1]

Regional specialists, however, fear that the presence of sophisticated U.S. military and surveillance equipment, as well as the sheer number of Marines that the United States brought to the Soto Cano Base Area in Palmerola, signal that this mobilization is the beginning of a new round of expansion of the United States’ presence in Central America reminiscent of Washington’s pro-contras and anti-sandinistas practices during the 1980s. These assumptions are based on how the United States has favorably supported the new Honduran government, despite it being established by the illegitimate removal of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya from office by military troops on June 28, 2009.

Countries in the Americas have been almost universally skeptical about the authenticity of the 2009 coup d’état and the statements made by President Barack Obama regarding this issue. In fact, according to the journalist Michael Parenti, certain indicators suggest that the 2009 Honduran coup was sponsored by the United States.[2] In her book Hard Choices, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted “that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office.”[3] It was later revealed that the cadre of influential lobbyists hired to galvanize support in Washington for the coup have strong ties to both Hillary and Bill Clinton.[4] Additionally, many Latin Americans have made definitive links between the United States and the movement that overthrew President Zelaya in 2009, and President Obama shied away from promptly denouncing the military coup in Honduras.

On the other hand, according to a 2009 column written by Noel Brinkerhoff for AllGov, many of the accusations of past U.S. complicity with the military moves in Honduras are based on the fact that, at that moment, and still today, a large segment of the Honduran military receives U.S. training and supplies.[5] This suggests that the military coup that overthrew President Zelaya would not have succeeded if Washington had not conferred the adequate training. However, what is most disquieting about this situation is that, despite knowing how extensively U.S. military training affects the behavior of Honduran troops, the United States agreed to continue providing strategic help to the Honduran armed forces. Washington thus continues to be targeted with accusations regarding the 2009 coup that overthrew President Zelaya. Most notably, the plane carrying Zelaya out of the country stopped and was refueled at the U.S. military base at Palmerola. U.S. authorities, however, insist that they had no knowledge of Zelaya being on the plane.[6]

The allegations of U.S. involvement in the coup are not the only reason for the regional skepticism regarding the recent military deployment in Honduras. According to a LatinNews article on Honduras, the fact that the United States is considering a military expansion to attack regional drug cartels could not only worsen the U.S. reputation in Latin America but also at the international level, because the failure of this mission would be disconcerting for its regional efforts. [7]

According to Heather Gies, it is not the recent military expansion that is most concerning to Hondurans, but rather the fact that neither the United States nor Honduran police have been particularly effective in combating the high index of criminality in the region.[8] In fact, some analysts find that the reason why the Honduran public views the recent U.S. military expansion as ominous is because they do not understand how the deployment of 180 Marines for six months will improve what thousands of police and military have failed to bring about in six years of fighting impunity and crime in the Central American country. [9]

Others take issue with the justification behind the military expansion, arguing that the geographic distance between Honduras and the United States is short enough that the deployment is not necessary, and that, if a natural disaster does occur, immediate collaboration and rapid deployment can be provided. Gies asserts, however, that hurricane protection is simply an excuse used by the United States to justify deploying its troops and thus expanding its military penetration through Latin America.[10]

What is central in this debate is not whether or not the United States should collaborate with Honduras, but rather why the United States is willing to collaborate with Honduras today, despite the fact that the Honduran government’s policy fundamentally contradicts the United States’ stance, specifically in regards to human rights. This controversy, according to Gies, will only result in growing scrutiny and criticism of the hypocrisy of U.S. policy toward Honduras and elsewhere in Latin America.[11]

In fact, according to Gies, what is most surprising about this situation is seeing how the United States applies its international policy selectively, isolating some nations like Venezuela, while supporting other countries such as Honduras, where levels of crime are exorbitant and there is very limited freedom of expression. What is most unnerving about the situation, according to recent declarations of former Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, is that there is no exact science determining what the United States is looking for in Honduras, nor is there a way to tell whether it is supporting the rule of law or rather the dictatorship. [12] The U.S. State Department’s annual Human Rights Report published this week condemns the cycle of impunity, human trafficking, and domestic violence that pervade Honduras, concluding that, “The [Honduran] government took some steps to prosecute and punish officials who committed abuses, but corruption, intimidation, and the poor functioning of the justice system were serious impediments to the protection of human rights.”[13] Contrary to this stance, it is the government’s ardent militarization of Honduras that has proved to be a most detrimental impediment to promoting human rights.

Although it is stipulated that the U.S military expansion in Honduras will solely be allowed during the strict period corresponding to the hurricane season, there is growing uneasiness among the Honduran population. Recent political and social events in the region give credence to the idea that the U.S. troops will prolong their stay in Honduras. In fact, logic indicates that if the troops are meant to battle drug cartels in addition to possibly providing hurricane relief, then they will need much longer than six months.

Under these circumstances, it would also be important for the U.S. government to issue statements that explain its military support for the Honduran government, given the passage of the “Leahy Law” in 1997, which prohibits U.S. military support to countries with records of human rights violations and with continued impunity. It is therefore unclear as to why the United States is providing military support to Honduras. It is also not clear what characteristics a regime must have to receive such acquiescent treatment from the U.S. government.

It is also of crucial relevance to define the time frame that the U.S. troops will be deployed in order to determine their success in countering the drug cartels and other factors contributing to elevated levels of crime and violence in Honduras. Finally, it would also be interesting to know what the repercussions of the next U.S. presidential elections will have in this process due to the fact that many of the top contenders are running on interventionist ideals, and, if elected, they could cause the military expansion in Honduras to be prolonged or even intensified.

NOVANEWS

UK governments should support brave humanitarian voyagers

Israel’s military thugs are once more raiding mercy ships on the high seas in an effort to prevent humanitarian aid reaching the 1.8 million souls in shattered Gaza.

The Jerusalem Postreports that the Swedish boat Marianne with 18 passengers has been “interdicted” by Israeli commandos 85 miles from the Gaza coast and towed to Ashdod. The three other vessels in the flotilla turned back and another big-hearted mission ended “with a whimper”.

Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon called his operation to deprive desperate, poverty stricken Gazans a “success”. The Marianne’s passengers would be be deported. “There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” he added.

Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, said: “This flotilla is nothing but a demonstration of hypocrisy and lies that is only assisting Hamas and ignores all of the horrors in our region.” He added that a panel established by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon determined that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is lawful.

“Israel is a democracy that defends itself in accordance with international law,” Netanyahu said. He stressed there was no “siege” of Gaza.

There’s no siege of Gaza, no humanitarian crisis? Anyone who’s been there knows Netanyahu and Ya’alon are damned liars.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition said on 27 June that at around 2:00am theMarianne reported that she was surrounded by three Israel navy boats in international waters, some 100 nautical miles from the Gaza coast. Radio contact was then lost. In a statement they said:

We have no reason to believe that Marianne’s capture was ‘uneventful’, because the last time the IDF [Israel Defence Forces – the Wehrmacht] said something like that, in 2012, the people on board the Estelle were badly tasered and beaten with clubs. Back in 2010, 10 passengers of Mavi Marmara were murdered by the IDF during a similar operation in international waters.

“Reckless to travel to Gaza”

Britain has form when it comes to disregarding international law and keeping the Israeli blockade going. Back in July 2009, I received a letter from the office of Britain’s then foreign secretary, David Miliband, in reply to questions about Israel’s hijacking of the mercy ship, Spirit of Humanity, on the high seas and the outrageous treatment of six peace-loving British citizens, including the skipper. They were en route to Gaza, not Israel, had their gear stolen or damaged and were thrown into Israeli jails. The letter said: “All those on board, including six British nationals, were handed over to Israeli immigration officials. British consular officials had good access to the British detainees and established that they were treated well.”

That’s not the story the peaceful seafarers told. They were assaulted, put in fear for their lives and deprived of their liberty for a full week – a long time in a stinking Israeli jail – for committing no offence whatsoever.

The letter continued:

The foreign secretary said in the House of Commons on 30 June that it was “vital that all states respect international law, including the law of the sea”… We regularly remind the Israeli government of its obligations under international law on a variety of issues, including with respect to humanitarian access to Gaza as well as Israel’s control of Gazan waters…

Our travel advice makes clear that we advise against all travel to Gaza, including its offshore waters; that it is reckless to travel to Gaza at this time…

So, instead of keeping the seaways open, it seems the British government was colluding with Israel to keep part of the Holy Land off-limits to British pilgrims, humanitarians and businesspeople, and implicating itself in the collective punishment inflicted by the Israeli regime on the citizens of Gaza.

A year later the Mavi Marmara was the target for armed assault on the high seas by Israeli commandos, who left nine passengers dead and dozens injured. The vessel was part of the Free Gaza flotilla. When reports were coming in that Israeli gunboats had “intercepted” the flotilla 90 miles out to sea and threatened humanitarian workers that they would be boarded and towed to an Israeli port, I emailed Britain’s then deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg: “Where is the Royal Navy when it’s needed to protect life and limb of the 30-odd British nationals?”

Ministers had themselves received advanced warning of Israel’s intention to stop the flotilla “by any means”, and the British people wanted their government to do them proud and provide real protection for those brave souls in their peaceful mission to bring relief to Palestinians whose lives were made a living hell by the bully-boys of the Middle East.

They were, after all, only doing the right thing… doing what the West’s cowardly leaders wet their pants at the very thought of doing.

Blockade “unacceptable and unsustainable”. So why is it still in place nine years later?

A few months earlier, in the run-up to the general election, Clegg had written in the Guardian:

…And what has the British government and the international community done to lift the blockade? Next to nothing. Tough-sounding declarations are issued at regular intervals but little real pressure is applied. It is a scandal that the international community has sat on its hands in the face of this unfolding crisis.

But Clegg, once in power and able to act, was as wimpish as every senior minister before him when put to the test:

The government was very clear in its disapproval of the Israeli actions which ended in such heavy and tragic loss of life.

We have underlined the need for a full, credible, impartial and independent investigation into the events… Israel’s announcement of an inquiry headed by former Supreme Court judge Yaakov Tirkel is an important step forward…

These events… arose from the unacceptable and unsustainable blockade of Gaza… It has long been the view of the government that restrictions on Gaza should be lifted – a view confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 1860, which called for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and called on states to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation persisting there.

It is essential that there is unfettered access – not only to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza, but to enable the reconstruction of homes and livelihoods and permit trade to take place.

It was then – and still is now – pointless calling for the blockade to be lifted. Israel’s repeated promises to “ease it” are purely cosmetic. In 2010 incoming goods to Gaza rose by a miserable 7 or 8 per cent while the block on exports remained. That’s all the West’s feeble hand-wringing achieved.

UN Security Council Resolution 1860 (America abstained on Israel’s orders, according to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert) called for the reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access. To this day there is no sign of Israeli compliance.

The following year, 2011, MP Caroline Lucas quizzed Foreign Secretary William Hague in the Commons, as recorded by Hansard (29 June):

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion): Earlier today, Palestine solidarity groups, politicians, teachers and others marked the anniversary of the attacks on the Free Gaza flotilla last year by sailing down the river outside Parliament and marking the launch of a new Free Gaza flotilla. As the foreign secretary has previously said that the situation in Gaza is unacceptable and unsustainable, will he tell us what further action he is taking to help get the siege lifted, and will he do everything that he can to get guarantees that this new flotilla will be safe from attack?

Mr Hague: We have continued to take the action that I set out in the House last year. We have urged Israel greatly to improve access to Gaza. It has taken some steps, but those steps have not been as fruitful as we had hoped when they were set out. Egypt has now opened an important crossing into Gaza, which may also provide some relief. The answer relies on the general lifting of a blockade of Gaza and on a negotiated two-state solution in the Middle East. However, embarking on new flotillas is not the way in which to bring that about. We advise against all travel to Gaza by British nationals, which includes people who may be thinking of boarding a flotilla to go there. We hope that Israel will make only a proportionate response to any such flotilla, but it is, nonetheless, not the way in which to sort out the problems of the Middle East. Such problems require negotiations in good faith by the parties concerned.

Hague’s answer might have been written by Israeli speechwriters. He insisted that flotillas were “not the way”. Well, what is? The proper way to break a siege, which the UN itself calls “illegal and contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention”, is surely for the UN to apply sanctions. Failing that, the right thing would be for UN warships to break the siege, or for international civil society to do it escorted by UN warships or by warships belonging to the nation(s) of the flagged humanitarian vessels threatened with piratical aggression.

The proper way for Israel to avoid trouble would be to end its illegal blockade of Gaza and its illegal occupation of the rest of Palestine, and not interfere with humanitarians going about their lawful business.

As for “negotiations in good faith”, when did they ever happen?

A year after Israel’s murderous assault on the Mavi Marmara Hague was making more daft remarks in the House of Commons:

”Our clear advice to British nationals is not to travel to Gaza.” Music to Israel’s ears, of course, as Hague helped to legitimise the illegal sea blockade.

”Their welfare [meaning the British nationals on board] is our top priority.” Hague knew of Israel’s intention to go to any lengths, including the use of lethal force, to stop the mercy ships but took no precautionary action.

He referred to “individuals who are allegedly involved in violence against Israeli servicemen during the boarding”, but failed to grasp that the violence was committed by Israeli storm-troopers dropping from helicopters with guns blazing under cover of darkness in international waters.

”Restrictions on Gaza should be lifted – a view confirmed in United Nations Security Council resolution 1860.” Bravo, he gets that bit right. But Resolution 1860 goes much further and calls for the sustained reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, which provides for

the reduction of obstacles to movement within the West Bank

bus and truck convoys between the West Bank and Gaza

the building of a new seaport in Gaza

reopening of the airport in Gaza

When did we see any of that happen?

Hague was challenged by Sir Gerald Kaufman, the straight-talking Jewish MP, who pointed out that any one of the 37 UK citizens might have been killed when the Israelis “committed a war crime of piracy in international waters, kidnapping and murder – and all in pursuit of upholding an illegal blockade on Gaza that amounts to collective punishment…” He asked Mr Hague for his assurance that further steps would be taken if the Israelis failed to comply with the modest request that had been made.

But Hague sidestepped, saying: “It is our strong advice to British nationals, as it has been in the past and will be in the future, not to travel to Gaza – let me make that absolutely clear – as they would be going into a dangerous situation, but it is absolutely wrong to maintain the blockade.”

MP Jeremy Corbyn asked if it wasn’t time for sanctions such as revoking the European Union-Israel trade agreement. Hague replied that he did not think imposing sanctions was the right policy either – but gave no reason.

MP Frank Dobson suggested that Britain and the other European members of NATO should give naval protection if another flotilla were to set off for Gaza, with the Royal Navy reverting to its traditional role of protecting the freedom of the seas. Hague dismissed this too.

As usual, no consequences for Israel’s crimes were contemplated. And the government chicken coop happily clucked its approval as Hague handed the Israelis total victory. Today, five years on, Israel is making the same threats and committing the same acts of piracy against the latest flotilla.

The mission’s team, chaired by Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, QC, a retired judge of the International Criminal Court, reported they were

satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal…

The mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined by international law… No case can be made for the legality of the interception and the mission therefore finds that the interception was illegal.

That wasn’t all. The naval blockade was implemented in support of the overall closure regime.

As such it was part of a single disproportionate measure of armed conflict and as such cannot itself be found proportionate. Furthermore, the closure regime is considered by the mission to constitute collective punishment of the people living in the Gaza Strip and thus to be illegal and contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Intercepting the Mavi Marmaraon the high seas was “clearly unlawful” and could not be justified even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations [the right of self-defence].

Due both to the legal nature of Israel’s relationship to Gaza – that of occupier – and the impact of the blockade on the civilian population, amounting to “collective punishment”, the blockade cannot be reconciled with the principles of international law, including international humanitarian law. It is recalled that the international community, speaking through both the United Nations and individual states, has repeatedly and emphatically called for an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The flotilla did not seek to travel to Israel, let alone “attack” Israel. Furthermore, the flotilla did not constitute an act which required an “urgent” response, such that Israel had to launch a middle-of-the-night armed boarding… Israel could also have diplomatically engaged Turkey, arranged for a third party to verify there were no weapons onboard and then peacefully guided the vessel to Gaza.

Craig Murray was Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and responsible for giving political and legal clearance to Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, in enforcement of the UN-authorised blockade against Iraqi weapons shipments. He is therefore an internationally recognised authority on these matters. Referring to the participation of an American boat,he said:

Right of free passage is guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, to which the United States is a full party. Any incident which takes place upon a US flagged ship on the high seas is subject to United States legal jurisdiction. A ship is entitled to look to its flag state for protection from attack on the High Seas…

Israel has declared a blockade on Gaza and justified previous fatal attacks on neutral civilian vessels on the high seas in terms of enforcing that embargo, under the legal cover given by the San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. There are however fundamental flaws in this line of argument. It falls completely on one fact alone. San Remo only applies to blockade in times of armed conflict. Israel is not currently engaged in an armed conflict, and presumably does not wish to be. San Remo does not confer any right to impose a permanent blockade outwith times of armed conflict, and in fact specifically excludes as illegal a general blockade on an entire population.

Sporadic attacks from Gaza did not come close to reaching the bar of armed conflict that would trigger the right to impose a naval blockade, he said. When the UK suffered continued terrorist attack from the IRA (Irish Republican Army), sustaining many more deaths than anything Israel has suffered in recent years from Gaza, it would have been ridiculous to argue that the UK had a right to mount a general naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland.

The EU Commission declared that “all those wishing to deliver goods to Gaza should do so through established channels”. The “established channel” for delivering goods to Gaza is of course the time-honoured route by sea, which is protected by maritime and international law. Flotilla organisers have offered their cargoes for inspection and verification by a trusted third party to allay Israel’s fears about weapon supplies. They should not have to deal direct with the belligerent regime that’s cruelly turning the screws on civilians with an illegal blockade. Anyone suggesting they must hand over their cargo to the aggressor seeks to legitimise the blockade, which we all know to be illegal and a crime against humanity.

Quite simply, an attack on civilian ships carrying humanitarian assistance to Gaza cannot be justified by the existence of a blockade that violates international law. So, Israel doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Nor does the cowardly British government. Nor do the 80 per cent of Conservative MPs and MEPs who, for whatever dark reasons, love and adore the abhorrent Israeli regime and the war criminals who run it. Therefore “all good men and true” should rally to support those brave humanitarian voyagers and ensure their governments back their play in future.

Posted in USA, GazaComments Off on “Untouchable” I$raHell continues to cripple Gaza with its sea blockade

The Pentagons new National Military Strategy (its first update since 2011) signaled possible major wars with US adversaries. Washington named four nations threatening no others as major US security threats: Russia, China, Iran and North Korea plus non-state groups…

On July 1st, CNN reported that President Barack Obamas top aides, including David Axelrod, communicated with Hillary Clinton at her private email address while she was secretary of state, and that, Obama officials including Axelrod had said they…

Given a series of recent speeches by leading US officials and actions, the question must be frankly posed: Has Washington gone collectively looney tunes? Even as the governments of the EU are moving to buck US pressures and ease the…

One of Denmarks national television stations, TV2, recently aired a documentary entitled The Vaccinated Girls Sick and Betrayed. The film focuses on three girls who were healthy before receiving the HPV vaccine but subsequently developed serious health problems that…

Just one day after Turkeys announcement of plans to invade Syria by implementing a no-fly zone or buffer zone, Jordan has now announced that it is consideringdoing the same. According to a report by the Financial Times published on Monday,…

Victims are mostly indigenous peoples (461 victims or 90% of the total) while the remaining are land activists, community leaders, farmers and agricultural workers. From January to June 2015, there have been about 56 cases of human rights violations related…

Where was the worldwide revulsion at the racist terror attack in Charleston? Obama sang Amazing Grace and lulled into a stupefying silence black voices that should have demanded answers as to why the Charleston attack was not considered a terrorist…

The U.S. State Department released a batch of 3,000 searchable documents formerly stored on the private hard drive and in a private email account of Democratic Party presidential candidate and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary

Posted in USAComments Off on White House Lies and Threats to Global Peace

NOVANEWS

ZIONIST PUPPET OF JORDAN AND HIS ZIONIST MASTER NAZIYAHU PHOTO

Zionist puppet Abdullah on Sunday expressed pride in the ‘unity’ of Jordanians and assured them that addressing economic challenges is at the top of the Kingdom’s priorities.

During a meeting with community and tribal leaders in the Northern Badia, Zionist puppet Abdullah described the unity of Jordanians and their solidarity as one family as “the source of our strength, honour and pride”.

“You are my family; you are close to my heart, and you are a genuine part of the Jordanian family; and I am proud of being among you,” He told Northern Badia residents, highlighting the commitment to maintaining contacts with them and listening to their views on various issues.

“I know there are many challenges in terms of the economic situation, and I assure you that the conditions will be better in the future,” the puppet said.

“You are close to the border and you feel the problems of the refugees and what is happening in Syria and Iraq more than other areas in the Kingdom.

“What concerns us is dealing with the challenge of poverty and unemployment, especially in the northern and the eastern regions of the Kingdom, which received the largest number of refugees since the beginning of the Syrian crisis.”

Jordan realises the magnitude of the challenges it is facing at the political, security and military levels as a result of the developments in Syria and Iraq, His Majesty said, but the country is comfortable enough to have economic challenges as its top priority.

“We are talking to the government on how to improve the economic conditions of citizens, and there is a 10-year [economic] programme and upcoming investments, and this is part of the strategy that we are thinking of for our country,” Zionist puppet said.

“We will work so that the share of the northern areas [in investment projects listed in the economic blueprint] is larger to enable them to face the problem of refugees and its social and economic repercussions on host communities, especially the Northern Badia.”

Zionist puppet stressed the importance of utilising all available resources and capabilities to implement various projects, in a manner that achieves the best possible life for Jordanians around the Kingdom.

Highlighting regional conditions, the Zionist puppet said it is “our duty as a state” to support the tribes in the east of Syria and the western areas of Iraq, highlighting Jordan’s world-recognised role in this regard and in ensuring regional security and stability.

Zionist puppet also expressed confidence in the Jordan Armed Forces-Arab Army and security forces as protectors of the Kingdom’s borders.

“I have full confidence in them,” The puppet said.

While listening to remarks made by various speakers during the visit, Zionist puppet said all the concerned parties should follow up on the Badia residents’ demands and bring about actual solutions, in accordance with the available capabilities, to improve the level of services and the living conditions of the people of the Northern Badia.

Welcoming the puppet visit, various puppet’s expressed their pride and support for the Zionist Hashemite leadership in safeguarding the country’s accomplishments and higher interests.

Zionist puppet regime representatives called for establishing development and industrial projects, vocational training centres, clubs for young people, new schools and kindergartens.

They also called for dealing with municipalities’ problems, solving water and electricity issues in some areas of the region and resolving the problem of the desert highway that connects the Kingdom with Iraq.

NOVANEWS

The controversy over Jordan’s future role and actions in southern Syria and western Iraq is yet to subside followingrenewed pledges on June 14 by King Abdullah that the kingdom will go ahead with plans to arm tribes in these regions in a bid to stop the expansion of Islamic State (IS) extremists and secure the country’s borders.

Speculation about a major shift in Jordan’s strategy toward its two war-torn neighbors became rife when the king presented the armed forces with a Hashemite flag during a solemn ceremony June 9, which observers said was highly symbolic and loaded with messages. The royal courtsaid in a statement, “The Hashemite flag’s colors and motifs combine elements of history, legitimacy, religion and Arabism found in the Hashemite family and the Great Arab Revolt.”

In an attempt to explain the meaning of this move, Jordanian Armed Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Mashal al-Zaben told armed forces radio June 10, “The banner will not replace the official Jordanian flag and the ceremony is meant as a message to others that our patience has limits.” He added, “The army will fend off outlaws and terrorists and that its role is no longer limited to defense but will act as a deterrent.” It remained unclear what the new approach to external threats will look like.

But an article published June 14 by political commentator Maher Abu Tair in the daily Ad Dustour created an unexpected public uproar. He wrote that the “[historical] functional description of Jordan could be changing and that Amman could become the capital of a new Arab kingdom” expanding into parts of Iraq, Syria and the West Bank. He added, “Jordan, like other countries in the region, is threatened with sabotage and fragmentation … or it could declare itself as an incubator for Arab Sunnis. Either we expand under a new formula or cease to exist!”

Reactions to his article came from every side with local and Arab commentators, former government officials and foreign correspondents speculating about Jordan’s territorial expansion into parts of Syria and Iraq.

Former Minister Mohammad Dawodieh wrote in the daily Alarab Alyawm on June 21 that as Jordanians, “We will not accept any increase or decrease in our borders nor will we accept altering the country’s official title.”

In his June 19 column in Ad Dustour, political commentator Oraib al-Rantawi criticized “the absence of an official storyline” regarding the army’s ceremony and its meanings. He rebutted arguments about the possibility of a birth of a “greater Jordan,” adding, “It is naive to believe that Iraqis, Syrians and Palestinians will give up on their national identity.” He then asked, “What about the position of Jordanians, whether Jordanians of Palestinian origin or East Bank Jordanians? Will they accept becoming a minority in their own country?” Rantawi concluded that such a plan, if it exists, “will raise challenges to national identity, which remains a controversial matter in Jordan.”

Abu Tair told Al-Monitor his piece was based on information rather than analysis. He remained convinced that in light of growing challenges by IS in Iraq and Syria, Jordan has no option but to intervene.

On June 19, Agence France-Presse reported from Damascus that representatives of some of Syria’s leading pro-government tribesrejected support from Abdullah against IS, accusing him of backing “terrorists.” Syria has repeatedly accused Jordan of training and arming opposition groups that are fighting the Damascus regime. But on June 26, a number of Syrian tribes issued a declaration welcoming the king’s pledge to train and arm members of the tribes, in light of the latest advances by IS militants in Syria. A spokesman for the tribes, Sheikh Mahmoud al-Jibn, said that tribal chiefs plan to meet in Amman after the end of Ramadan in mid-July to back the initiative.

Abu Tair said, “It will be interesting to see how Jordan will react if the tribal chiefs issue a direct call for the army to intervene in their areas.” On May 1, Iraqi Vice President Osama al-Nujaifi said Jordan has agreed to arm Iraqi tribes in Anbar province to defend areas against IS militants.

It took the government more than 10 days to react to speculations about the kingdom’s possible expansion. Government spokesman Mohammad al-Momani said June 24 that Jordan has no plans “whatsoever” to expand beyond its borders,rejecting as baseless any reports or speculation that suggest the opposite. “Jordan respects other countries’ sovereignty. … In fact, we help these countries regain their stability and security,” he said in a news conference.

But political commentator Fahd al-Khitan said Jordan’s strategic approach to conflicts in neighboring countries could be changing. He told Al-Monitor, “The role of the security and military organs will increase as we face long-term threats.” He added, “We are still at a stage where we have not moved from defense to deterrence, but there are signs that our position could be changing soon.”

Khitan further stated, “Our priority should be to keep the chaos from moving across the border, but any ambitions outside our territory will endanger the kingdom.”

Lower House Deputy Jamil al-Nimri said, “Backing Sunni tribes in Iraq and Syria is a must if we are to defeat sectarianism and lawlessness and create a moderate national power.” He told Al-Monitor, “Any talk about territorial expansion and regional ambitions [for Jordan] reflect sickly delusions.” As to calls to protect Syria’s Druze minority in Suwayda province, Nimri said, “Their presence along our northeastern borders is part of our strategic depth, and we should do everything to protect them without getting into direct contact with IS militants.”

Political analyst Labib Kamhawi was critical of any Jordanian role outside its borders. He told Al-Monitor, “Jordan is being pressured to become an incubator to absorb the outcome of partitions [in Iraq and Syria], which serves Israeli and American interests.” He added, “What is happening in the region is extremely dangerous, and Jordan should not be part of attempts to partition both countries so that Sunni tribes can become part of Jordan along a federal setup.” He said, “Fattening Jordan will not serve the cause of Arab nationalism.” He warned of Israeli plans to create “a Druze belt” in the Golan Heights leading to a Druze state that would play a similar role to Jordan’s, in other words, a buffer zone between Israel and the rest of the Arab world.

Jordanians remain divided over a possible new role for Jordan in Syria and Iraq. Most recognize the rising threat of IS and other Islamist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra so close to their borders. But few believe a greater Jordan is the answer to such threats. As Khitan said, “Jordan should be wary of attempts to lure it into a military and political trap outside its borders.”

Posted in JordanComments Off on IS threat could push Jordan beyond its borders

NOVANEWS

One week ago, Tunisian student Seifeddine Rezgai opened fire on tourists near Sousse, Tunisia, killing 38 people. On the same day, a man was beheaded in France and a bomb detonated in a Shia mosque in Kuwait killing 27. ISIS claimed responsibility for all three.

Amidst the media coverage that follows terrorist attacks such as these, two schools of thought generally emerge: one asserts that terrorists are driven by religious ideology and the other that they are driven by political motives, principally western foreign policy. “All the evidence suggests that this is deeply political,” says Richard Jackson, Deputy Director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. “It’s the conclusion of all the serious scholars I’m aware of that, in particular, the invasion of Iraq was the single most radicalising event for militants across the Middle East and in European and Western countries.”

“That makes complete sense,” he continues. “Because if we look at this kind of terrorism it wasn’t around in the same form and the same level or even close to the same extent 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. Islam’s been around for hundreds of years… but this is a very modern phenomenon and it’s very, very connected to the politics of the Middle East, particularly to the invasions to Guantanamo, to Abu Ghraib torture, to drone strikes and so on.”

“What you’ve got to remember is that the west has killed 1.3 million people in Iraq. That’s likely to drive any reasonable person into a rage and cause immense grievance.”

The Tunisian government responded to last Friday’s attacks by issuing an order to close more than 80 mosques. Jackson, who is also Chief Editor of Critical Studies on Terrorism and runs a blog on the subject, explains that one of the oldest precepts of theories on terrorism states that isolated acts of violence push the state to respond by cracking down, which in turn intensifies grievances against the state and mobilises support.

The theory, he says, “is that you provoke the power to respond in a disproportionate way, which then creates grievance, which then gives terrorists more support and leads eventually to a broader, deeper movement that can perhaps consider moving to the next stage, which would be a kind of a civil war or an insurgency and then eventually overthrowing [the] regime.” […]

Last year, Jackson took a break from writing academic books to pen Confessions of a Terrorist, a fictional account of a dialogue between a wanted terrorist and a British intelligence officer. Jackson says he has always wanted a novel to give to his students but only found literature that painted terrorists out to be Hollywood-style villains.

Confessions of a Terrorist questions the taboo of talking to terrorists and the fear many have that doing so will lead to understanding and sympathising with their behaviour. “I think that it’s really important that we talk to them so we know what we really want and so that we understand what they’re trying to achieve and why they think they have to use violence… and whether if the situation was reversed we would do the same thing… [T]he reality is in many ways we go and commit a lot of violence overseas and then when people react against that and fight back we get all shocked and surprised. So we need to talk to them.”

“If you look at the academic research, you find out that actually most terrorist groups are not defeated through military means, but a much higher proportion of them stop their terrorism through political dialogue,” he continues. “So once you start talking to them and once you bring them into the political process, once you listen to what their grievances are and try and address them terrorism subsides.”

One of the consequences of not talking to terrorists, believes Jackson, is that we have dehumanised them which allows us to take away their human rights and justifies acts such as killing them with drones. “As a consequence countless innocent people have been killed… Countless innocent people have been tortured; have been kidnapped and taken to these horrible, secret prisons around the world. All kinds of human rights abuses have been carried out and as a result we in many ways have betrayed our own values and that’s because we’ve dehumanised the terrorists and that’s why I think it’s really important to re-humanise them.”

The language of terrorism is thus a way of defining the “other” and drawing a distinction between us and them, good versus evil, freedom lovers against freedom haters and soldiers and patriots against terrorists, says Jackson: “You can look through history – recent and long in the past –and realise that actually governments commit exactly the same acts as so-called terrorists. They use violence to try and terrify groups of people and intimidate groups of people. Sometimes, they plant bombs in public places or blow up or hijack planes. There are so many examples.”

A lot of terrorist scholars argue, therefore, that if the definition of terrorism is applied objectively a lot of state violence can be classified as state terrorism. “But again, that’s a very difficult narrative to make and to be accepted in public because we like to have these clear lines between our good legitimate violence which comes out of the authority of the state and illegitimate, illegal violence,” says Jackson.

“The problem is that when those two forms of violence look identical and you can’t tell the difference between them; [then] there comes to be a question over [whether] our violence [is] actually that legitimate.”

NOVANEWS

So-called “Islamic State” militants recently executed 160 children and women for a variety of alleged offences including refusal to fast during Ramadan and sorcery.

The latest killings brought the number of ‘ISIS’ victims in the Middle East to over 3,000 since the terrorist declared a state or caliphate of their own in June last year.

“Many of the charges against those executed are recorded as blasphemy and spying, but others include sorcery, sodomy, practicing as a Shia Muslim,”.

The children and women met unholy deaths in the hands of ‘ISIS’ as they were accused of practising “magic” and for refusing to fast, Fox News reported.

This week, two children were crucified in the Mayadin, Deir Ezzor province in eastern Syria after ISIS leaders accused them of “improper fasting” during the Islamic month of Ramadan, which runs from June 17 to July 17.

“The Islamic State group executed two women by beheading them in Deir Ezzor province, and this is the first time the Observatory has documented women being killed by the group in this manner,”

“The practising of anything that is not approved by the ISIS under their very strict interpretation is ‘haram’ or forbidden,” said Veryan Khan, editorial director for the Florida-based Terrorism, Research & Analysis Consortium.

“If the Islamic State thinks that sorcery is real, then black magic would be a threat to them and seen as a danger.”

Posted in Saudi Arabia, SyriaComments Off on Saudi Zio-Wahhabi Recently Executes 160 Children and Women

So-called “Islamic State”’s captured terrorists are forced to kneel as a commander announces: ‘Allah did not make a disease without appointing a remedy to it.’

The Jaysh Al-Islam member – dressed entirely in black – are then given something to drink before each of their faces are clearly shown in the 19 minute-long propaganda video. They are then shot in the back of the head at point blank range with shotguns.

Jaysh Al-Islam battle against President Bashar Al-Assad government and Syrian army is reportedly funded by the wealthy Saudi Zio-Wahhabi regime.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Zio-Wahhabi Western Backed Rebels Execute 13 ISIS Terrorist for Revenge